Personal Attacks Against Jim Hoffman
Hundreds of people have written to 9-11 Research to thank us for creating the website. (See these excerpts from correspondence.) Many people thank us for our courage in exposing the crimes of 9/11/01, and some have expressed concern for our safety. However, in one of the many counter-intuitive aspects of the 9-11 investigation, failing to speak up about the crime may be a greater risk to one's health than proclaiming the bankruptcy of the official story, given the future we face if the attack continues to function as a pretext for the theft of civil liberties and maintenance of endless war.
Nonetheless, the creation of 9-11 Research has required great sacrifices. Aside from the cost in time and money, the effort has made us the target of a campaign of ugly personal attacks, aimed especially at Jim Hoffman -- the person most identified with the creation of 9-11 Research. These attacks have come, not primarily from people defending the official story -- though we have received our share of hate mail from that quarter -- but from a cluster of internet personas and individuals who present themselves as guardians of the whole truth of 9/11. The intimidation page on 911Review.com provides some insight into the reasons that ad hominem attacks are a preferred method of harassing researchers. Indeed, we would suspect we were failing in our goals if we were not targeted with such campaigns.
To get a sense of the effort being put into this campaign, try the following Google Searches:
A fact that will be noticed by anyone bothering to read a sampling of the many attack pieces is that the attackers consistently promote the "no-planes" theories. Mark Robinowitz, author of "No Planes on 9/11" hoaxes and Eric Salter, author of A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories are often targeted in the same attacks.
A campaign of invective against Jim Hoffman started at about the time that 9-11 Research was launched and grew in a way that roughly parallelled the site's popularity. The campaign started out as a whispering campaign, and gradually became more public. This page traces some of the campaign's main actors and currents, and examines its principle methods.
- 911Review.org and Michael Elliot
- Gerard Holmgren and "the WebFairy"
- Serendipity.li and Peter Meyer
- Rick Siegel and 911eyewitness.com
- Ad Hominems, Nonsense, and Anti-Semitism
911Review.org and Michael Elliot
Michael Elliot was the first "researcher" to attack Jim Hoffman, starting a rumor in the fall of 2003 that Hoffman is an "NSA Spook", which was then circulated by Gerard Holmgren, "the WebFairy", and Peter Meyer. What started as a whispering campaign became more public over time. Elliot was the webmaster of 911Review.org which was subsequently overhauled in early 2004. Both the original 911Review.org and its successor (which archives much of the original's content), centrally feature the no-jetliners theories. After Hoffman published a critique of 911Review.org on a domain secured by his friend Paul Borneo, 911Review.org published a prominent page alleging that Hoffman had sinister connections to intelligence agencies and implying that he had set up the murder of his best friend Robert Woodward. Only slightly modified since, the page included the following.
Imagine what it's like to lose your best friend to police violence and then see the incident used to insinuate that you set up the killing to gain "activist credentials"! ( For the coverup with striking parallels to the 9/11 coverup, read the Justice for Woody website. )
This cynical narrative has more fiction than fact. John Kaminski once lived in Brattleboro, but neither Hoffman nor Borneo did. Hoffman for a time used the alias Pax Amor before going public with wtc7.net and 911Research in the fall of 2003. Hoffman never represented himself as an MD, and had a difficult time getting the incorrect listing, and his name, removed from the "SPINE" membership list, since the proprietor of Physics911.org claimed for some time that he was unable to edit the website. Whether or not the error was intentional, it served Elliot's attack.
In fact, Hoffman was employed as a "graphics programmer" (not a "computer engineer"), at MSRI, before 2005, but never at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. MSRI was and is supported by a variety of public and private donors, including numerous corporations, private individuals, and government agencies, all of which is irrelevant to Hoffman's employment because his salary and overhead were paid entirely by a grant for pure mathematical research. The idea that Hoffman has or had some connection with the NSA never had a shred of truth, but Michael Elliot's flimsy "research" served the pathetic campaign to defame Hoffman.
Gerard Holmgren and "the WebFairy"
Two of the most persistent and vitriolic of Jim Hoffman's detractors are "Gerard Holmgren", apparently a resident of Australia, and "the WebFairy", AKA "Rosalee Grable", supposedly a grandmother in Chicago. The two function as a tag team, Holmgren praising WebFairy and complaining bitterly about "vicious attacks" on 'her', while WebFairy reposts Holmgren's attacks and demurs that 'she' doesn't mind the attacks and plagiarism of her work.
A good sense of Holmgren's M.O. is provided by the following post to the Yahoo Groups 911TruthAction.
[ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/635?threaded=1 ] On Jun 26, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Gerard Holmgren wrote: ... I am informed that [Victoria] may be brave enough to present an argument where crybaby Jim is not, so she is welcome to come to his defence, if she so desires ( or maybe she's just starting to work out what an assehole he is ) - anyway, I'll leave that up to her. If Victoria wishes to find out what's already gone down, so that she can comment from an informed position, then I'm happy to forward to her, all significant emails which have so far been written on this subject over the last few days. But basically, Victoria, we're all agreed that Jim is a disinformation creep, so now we're discussing whether he is actually a cointelpro agent, or whether he has some other motive. [[I agree he is a disinfo artist, though i am still not convinced he works for "them",]] The fact that Hoffamn is guilty of disinfo is proven beyond argument, He has been caught over and over again, lying, plagiarizing, and taking positions so mutually contradictory that it cannot be stupidity, and also of malicious libel. So we can move past the point of arguing about whether he is a disinfo artist. That's established. The question now is his motives. As Jeff correctly points out disinfo does not automatically mean cointelpro. There is still a case to be proven ( or otherwise ) in that regard. So, I think this is where we need to move to now on this. Is Hoffman's disgraceful record of lying, plagiarism and libel merely for cynical person gain, for some political agenda which finds certain aspects of S11 truth convenient and others not, or is he actually a cointelpro agent of some kind. Myself, I am strongly leaning towards the latter, but concede that the case is not proven. I notice that Jim still makes no effort to come forward and defend himself. This leaves us no option but to make a decision on the basis of what we have at the moment, since it seems that (unless someone digs up something else) only Hoffman's appearance for questioning can either clear his name (of cointelpro) or confirm his guilt. The very fact that he refuses to appear before us, does not help his case. So at this stage ( and I know that Jim is getting these emails ), I will make the following statement. That I have presented evidence which satisfies me that Hoffamn is a cointelpro agent of some sort and in spite of repeated invitations he refuses the opportubnity to come forward and clear his name (if that were possible). Since Hoffman refuses to deny any conitelpro involvement, then I can state that Hoffman has tacitly admitted ( by his silence) to such involvement, and from this time on I will refer to him as "exposed contelpro[sic] agent" or confessed coitelpro agent" or a phrase with similar meaning. Given that Hoffman has been given numerous opportunities to deny the accusations and chooses not to, then he has no grounds for complaint when in other foraums I state simply that he "tacitly admitted it." ...
In this passage, Holmgren calls Hoffman an "assehole" and accuses him of lying, plagiarism, and libel, and insinuates that he is a COINTELPRO agent, and that everyone agrees that he is a "disinformation creep."
The 911TruthAction forum has dozens of links to and repostings of a set of three attack pieces written by Holmgren, and broadcast by WebFairy and Peter Meyer.
Serendipity.li and Peter Meyer
Serendipity.li listed Holmgren's three-punch series of ad hominem attacks on its prominent page "Relevant Pages on Other Websites" ( http://www.serendipity.li/wtc_other_sites.htm ), until January 25, 2005.
- Joe Quinn:
Jim Hoffman's Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers
[ http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm ]
- Gerard Holmgren responds to Jim Hoffman's article (referenced below)
in several posts:
Hoffman the Plagiarist
[ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186867 ]
Hoffman the Spook
[ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186880 ]
How Hoffman distorts evidence
[ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186929 ]
- Hoffman the Plagiarist
Although Serendipity.li claims to reference Hoffman's Pentagon article ( The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics ), it has no links to it. Serendipity.li describes Holmgren's attack pieces as "Gerard Holmgren responds to Jim Hoffman's article", but Holmgren's insulting and slander-filled pieces in no way respond to the substance or tone of the article. In fact, Hoffman's only mention of Holmgren in the article is:
Meyssan's conclusions were echoed by Gerard Holmgren, who published the lengthy Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash [ http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/ ] in October of 2002. Like Meyssan, Holmgren relied on photographs in which obstructions hide large regions of first-floor damage. Holmgren's unwieldy manifesto-sized analysis was widely embraced by no-757-crash theorists.
Holmgren's three attack pieces and Joe Quinn's "rebuttal" are four of only a handful of articles on Serendipity.li's "Relevant Pages" that single out individuals for attack. The only other obvious example is its promotion of Victor Thorn's Nicholas Levis: Tarred-and-Feathered [ http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/leviswtc.html ] which could be read as an attempt to incite violence against Levis. Note that Hoffman never personally attacked Peter Meyer, but did criticize Serendipity.li's promotion of nonsensical ideas like the faking of the jetliner crashes into the Twin Towers.
Serendipity.li has since removed most of its links to Holmgren's pieces attacking Hoffman at the behest of Steven Jones.
In the post excerpted here, Peter Meyer attacks Don Paul, suggesting that the book he co-authored with Hoffman, WAKING UP FROM OUR NIGHTMARE is disinformation because its thesis -- that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions -- is a "limited hangout".
[ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/639?threaded=1 ] Thus your book appears to be disinfo, since it leaves the core lie intact. However, I am not saying that you, Don, are a disinfo artist. For now I'll simply suggest that you were duped by Hoffman into contributing (much or little) to a book which was intended to offer an argument for the falsity of the core lie but which is an argument which does not stand up to criticism. It *looks* impressive, but when push comes to shove the perps have a limited hangout strategy which allows them to admit that the buildings were demolished without having to abandon the core lie, namely, that 9/11 was done by "Arab terrorists".
Continuing to berate Don Paul, Meyer goes on to suggest that Hoffman is covering up evidence disproving the Arab hijackers theory:
One of the sources of that disinformation is Jim Hoffman's web site, and one of his "poison pills" concerns whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. If it did not then the "Arab hijackers" theory is dead, but Jim seems to want to deny that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon (or rather, he seems to say that one did, since to assert that one did not is to be duped by the perps). The evidence clearly shows that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and this is a knife in the heart of the "Arab hijackers" theory, but Jim does not want us to consider this evidence (or any other evidence refuting the "Arab hijackers" claim, such as Gerard's discovery of the BTS records). And since you and he are such close collaborators I'm afraid we must also wonder about *you*.
In the above passage, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records that Meyer lauds Holmgren with discovering supposedly lack entries for Flights 11 and 175. That this is evidence of anything but a failure to update the database would escape most reasonable people. Consider Meyer's contention that "Jim does not want us to consider [evidence refuting] the Arab hijackers claim" in light of the following pages on 9-11 Research:
- Flight Routes
- Clueless Super-Pilot
- Resurrected Hijackers
- "Fatty" bin Laden
- Where the Pentagon Was Hit
- NORAD Stand-Down
- Intents of the Perpetrators
Meyer further elucidates the idea that exposing the controlled demolitions functions only as a limited hangout here:
[ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/636?threaded=1 ] So let us suppose that suddenly the whole world is convinced that, yes, the Twin Towers were certainly brought down deliberately on 9/11. What could the Bush administration reply? They could say: "Yes, it's true. But we had to do it. The plane impacts and the fires had so damaged the buildings that they were about to collapse in an uncontrolled way, showering the surrounding area of downtown Manhattan with 100,000 tons of steel and concrete. Had this happened then tens of thousands of people would have been killed. So we made the decision to bring the towers down before that could happen. Unfortunately there was not time to get everyone out, and 3000 people died. We greatly regret this. But it was for the best, since we thus saved the lives of tens of thousands of people."
Oh, really? This would require people to believe that:
- The buildings were pre-rigged for demolition just in case they needed to be brought down, even though there is not a single case in history of a skyscraper toppling.
- Even though no one anticipated the collapses, authorities made an excusable decision to demolish the Towers with thousands of occupants and firefighters inside. And the decision to take down the South Tower was made without even attempting to evacuate the building.
In the following post to 911TruthAction Meyer again repeats URLs for Holmgren's ad hominem attacks, speaks of Hoffman's "lies and deceit," and recommends Holmgren's "evaluation of Hoffman."
[ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/660?threaded=1 ] Hoffman the Plagiarist http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/154107#154724 Spook Hoffman http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/154107#154725 How Hoffman distorts evidence http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/154107#154726 I don't criticize you for promoting Hoffman's lies and deceit, since you say that Gabriel Day's site is not yours, though clearly there is some connection. But Day should be aware of the nature of the websites that he is recommending others to read. Is he recommending Hoffman's work without having bothered to understand what Hoffman is doing? If so, that is not only irresponsible but naive and mushy-brained. If he knows what Hoffman is up to and still recommends his sites then he is an accessory. Perhaps you can take the trouble to check Gerard's evaluation of Hoffman, and then diplomatically inform Gabriel of who he is promoting on his "Recommended Links" page. Regards, Peter
Rick Siegel and 911eyewitness.com
Rick Siegel is yet another in a series of promoters of no-plane theories who has attacked Hoffman as a COINTELPRO agent. Siegel is the creator of 9/11 Eyewitness, a DVD the promotes ideas such as that helicopters were instrumental in destroying the Twin Towers. This review of the film shows that the content of the DVD is anything but rational.
The following attack is prominently featured on 911eyewitness.com, a site recommended by ScholarsFor911Truth.org:
[ http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=36 ]
Since the idea that seismic spikes preceded the 'collapses' (See ERROR: 'Seismic Spikes Preceded Towers' Collapses') is contradicted by the evidence, and seems to support the dubious basement bombs theory, it is an effective tool for concealing valid evidence of demolition. No wonder it was highlighted by the Popular Mechanics piece.
Sign of the Times website has outed Hoffman here: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm
Signs-of-the-times.org is the host of a high-ranking "critique" of Hoffman's essay The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics.
Siegel's assertion that Hoffman "avoids discussing the simple fact that nearby Edwards Air Force Base did not scramble any fighters" is belied by several radio interviews in which Hoffman emphasizes that very point, and by the following pages on 9-11 Research that pre-dated Siegel's attack by more than two years:
In the following passage, Siegel suggests that Hoffman uses websites to monitor visitors and craft COINTELPRO operations.
Richard Siegel was a featured speaker at two 2006 conferences billed as revealing 9/11 Truth: 9/11 Revealing The Truth / Reclaiming Our Future and American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda. Siegel was invited to speak at the Revealing The Truth in Chicago after the organizers were informed of Siegel's ad hominem attacks.
Ad Hominems, Nonsense, and Anti-Semitism
It is noteworthy that Michael Elliot, "the WebFairy", Gerard Holmgren, Peter Meyer, and Richard Siegel all promote nonsensical theories as 9/11 truth. "The WebFairy" and Gerard Holmgren are the most vocal proponents of the ludicrous ideas that the towers were not hit by jetliners, but that holograms, missiles, and/or "media overlays" were used to fake the events. The original 911Review.org promoted these ideas in numerous ways, as this critique shows. Elliot began his campaign of slandering Hoffman before Hoffman or anyone else critiqued 911Review.org. Similarly, Meyer's Serendipity.li began attacking Hoffman before Hoffman began critiquing Serendipity. The critiques of Serendipity articles by "Leonard Spencer" (who may be another persona of Meyer) such as this note the absurdity of the theories advanced by these well-written articles.
In addition to ad hominems and nonsensical ideas, Serendipity.li promotes anti-Semitism in a number of subtle ways.